
J 




LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




012 026 283 A 



pH8.5 



~N 




S P E E C H 






HON. ELISHA K POTTEE, 

OF SOUTH KINGSTOWN, 



rrox THE 



WITH AN ADDITIONAL NOTE. 



PROVIDENCE: 

COOKE & DANIELSON, PRINTERS TO THE STATE, 16 WEYBOSSET STREET. 

1861. 



/Y* x 



£« 



.<p 






SPEECH 

OF 

HON. ELISHA B. POTTER, 

OF SOUTH KINGSTOWN, 

IX THE SENATE OF RHODE ISLAND, DURING THE SPECIAL 
SESSION, AUGUST 10, 1801. 



Mr. Potter, of South Kingstown, offered the following reso- 
lutions : 

Resolved, That in the present crisis of our public affairs, there ought to be a 
full and sincere' union of all political parties in support of the constitutionally 
elected government of the United States, and that this General Assembly 
pledges to the President of the United States the best exertions of the govern- 
nient and people of Rhode Island, and its entire resources, for the preservation 
of the Union. 

Resolved, Thai Bis Excellency the Governor be requested to cause a copy of 
this resolution to be transmitted to the President of the United States. 

Mr. Potter said : — 

Before taking the question on the resolutions I have introdu- 
ced, I wish to offer a few remarks. 

The resolutions are intended to encourage and bring about a 
union of all parties for the sake of the Union. Since the affair 
of Fori Sumter, there 1ms been a general disposition manifested 
in this State to support the national administration. The Dem- 
ocrats were generally disposed to support the President in his ef- 
forts to preserve the Union, if they could be allowed to do so, 
hut unfortunately there was with a lew persons a disposition to 
denounce every oneas a secessionist who did not agree with them 
in full, and more especially if they had an old grudge against him. 



When 1 heard the address of Governor Sprague, at tlie open- 
ing of the session, in which he spoke of the power and resources 
of the South, I could not help thinking that if that address had 
been made three weeks ago, the Governor himself would have 
been denounced as a secessionist, notwithstanding all he had done 
and risked in defence of the Union. When General Scott and 
the Cabinet are accused of treason, who can expect to escape ? 

A few weeks ago the people seemed determined not to hear 
the truth* It would not do for any one to say a word about 
the extent or productions of the slave States ; and to express 
the opinion that they could not be starved out, or that they 
would not all run away as soon as we marched against them, was 
rank treason in the eyes of some. 

But the late battle has changed all that. The effect of the 
battle at the Smith would be to unite and encourage them, and 
Bo tiir was bad for Us ; but the effect at the North would be good; 
It would put a stop to all the bragging and blustering and parade 
soldiering which had been going on so long, and it would lead 
people to look upon it as a serious matter, as it was. 

I thought a great many times that if an intelligent foreigner 
had been amongst us, who had seen military service alid battles 
abroad, he would have been perfectly disgusted with the manner 
in which our people and newspapers spoke of the war, how Ave 
boasted of our grand army, and how we magnified every skir- 
mish into a great victory, where the Southerners always ran, 
almost before they were attacked. 

And this defeat had rendered a Union of parties liiore neces^ 
sary and easier to be brought about. As the war advanced and 
we felt its pressure, Ave should be more disposed to give up all 
our oavU little bickerings and contentions, and to sacrifice pe'r a 
sonal feeling to the good of tlie country. 

And it has rendered lis more willing to listen to the truth 
about our enemies. We had been trying to conceal the truth 
from ourselves, and this miserable policy of self-deception had 
cost us the loss of the battle of Manassas, the loss of many Aal- 
tiable lives, and had probably added years to the contest. We 
should learn hereafter not to underrate our enemies. 

This Avould be one good effect of the defeat, that the people 
would iioav be Avilling to hear the truth ; and with this A r ieAv I 
propose to give some statistics of the productions of the South, a 
subject on which our people appeared to be entirely ignorant. 
The general idea Was that all the South raised A\ T as cotton, rice, 
and a very little grain ; aiid that nearly all the corn and Avheat 



was raised in the great West. The census tells a different story. 
We should l>e surprised to find that these Southern States raised 
One half of all the corn raised in the whole Union, and a good 
proportion of other grains. 

In order to make the statement fair, I class the eight Southern, 
or cotton States together, and put the four Northern States, Vir- 
ginia, Kentucky, North Carolina and Tennessee, together, and 
leave out of the account, Missouri, Maryland and Delaware, 
although there is a great deal of sympathy for the slave cause in 
those States. 

8 Southern States— 
S C:u-.. Qeo., I'lor., Al.. 

Miss., Louisiana, Arkan., Va., Keun., iN . Whole 

Texas. Car., Tenn. U. States. 

Neut Cattle, number, - - 5,398,000 2,864,000 18,378,000 

Slur!., " - - 1,844,000 3,818,000 21,723,000 

Swine, " - 9,053,000 9,830,000 30,374,000 

Wheat, bushels, - - 2,820,000 17,103,000 100,485,000 

live, "... 131,000 1,191,000 14,188,000 

Oate, " - - 11,020,000 30.135,000 140,584,000 

Corn, " - - 124,734,000 174,142,000 592,071,000 

Potatoes, " - - 27,100,000 15,181,000 104,000,000 

Barley, " - 22,000 124,000 5,167,000 

Peas and Beans, " - - 4,892,000 2,570,000 9,219,000 

Butter and Cheese, pounds, 21,478,000 34,245,000 418,881,000 

Uice, " 209.502,000 5,745,000 215,313,000 

Thus these States raise all the great crop of rice, one-fifth of 
all the wheat, one-half of all the corn, and a respectable propor- 
tion of other crops. And there is a large field crop of peas and 
beans, a crop hardly known here. And the number of cattle, 
sheep, &c, is large. Two-thirds of nil the hogs are in these 
twelve Southern States and nearly half the neat cattle. 

The-;' facts are from the census of 1850, as the agricultural 
statistics of 18(10 are not yet published. And since 1850, Texas 
has increased in population and wealth, and the crop of corn, 
this year, in Texas alone, is said to be enough to sustain the 
whole South. 

1 am very glad to see in the New York World, (the adminis- 
tration organ,) of yesterday, a few of these facts stated under the 
very significant caption of " starvation a fallacy." I will give 
my views presently of the mode of prosecuting the war. 

We used to suppose that the Germans in Texas would be 
anti-slavery, and would make a, free State there. Hut it is said 
they have begun to buy slaves, and having gone to Rome, are 
doing as Romans do. 

lint there is another thing we ought to consider, as it was 
always poor polic) to underrate our enemies. By the census of 
I -Stid, the '•hole population of these twelve States is oyer 10,000- 



000, of whom six and a half millions arc whites. Let us see the 
number of whites of military age (between 18 and 45) in those 
States. 

The 8 Southern States have - - - 506,000 

The 4 Northern States have - 700,000 

The whole United States have - - . 5,433,000 
So that we see the cotton States alone can send a large army 
into the field and still leave a large force at home.* 

In these calculations I have omitted Missouri and Maryland, 
and given the statistics of Kentucky, Virginia, North Carolina, 
and Tennessee, because, although there is a strong Union partj 
in these four States, yet the sympathies of a large portion of the 
people are with the South, and whatever may hap] ten they are 
not going to see their Sonthrcn brethren starve. So also with 
Maryland and Missouri. The Union men there would like to 
have their Southern brethren come back into the Union ; but 
they would not like to see them suffering. 

The South, too, are fighting with the same advantage against 
us that our forefathers had in our revolution against the English. 
They arc at home, where they know every road, brook, hill and 
wooupath, and are accustomed to the climate, and among friends. 
We are fighting among strangers, where a soldier cannot leave 
his cam]) without danger, and with no one to rely on for aid or 
information. 

But it may be said, these figures are all true, but why publish 
them to discourage us ? We charge the Southern leaders with 
keeping the people in ignorance, and yet we are doing the same 
here. I am not afraid to trust the people with the facts. The 
knowledge of the truth would lead to a better conduct of the 
war. If the Republicans expected to carry on the war as Re- 
publicans, it would be a miserable failure. We need the union 
of the whole North, and we ought to be willing to sacrifice all 
personal and political feelings to bring it about. And Republi- 
cans being in a majority at the North, ought to be willing to sac- 
rifice the most. Suppose once in awhile a Democrat from old 
habit can't keep from damning the abolitionists? They don't 
mind it. They are used to it. Let him alone, and by-and-by 
misery and suffering will bring us all together. 

The " on to Richmond party" if not dead, is at least suspend- 
ed. But there is another faction, equally if not more danger- 
ous, and that is the " on to England" party. 

*Thc whole population of the fifteen slave States is over twelve millions. 



There was one newspaper professing to support the Adminis- 
tration, which was now doing more mischief to the Union cause 
than all the secession newspapers North and South put together- 
I do not mean the Tribune^ but the New York Herald. If it 
was in the pay of the secessionists, it could not do more mischief. 
It has been for weeks abusing England, and threatening to con- 
quer Canada. And we are now getting from the English and 
Canadian papers, the returns in kind for this abuse. It was 
alienating them from us when we needed their sympathies. It 
was trying to get us into two wars, when We could hardly carry 
on one. 

Unfortunately the Herald was almost the only American news- 
paper seen abroad. It was conducted with superior ability, and 
very few knew the magnitude of the mischief done by it in this 
war. 

Very probabty there may be in England a few who are jeal- 
ous of the power of our Union, and would not be sorry to see it 
broken up ; but generally the sympathies of the English were in 
our favor, until our papers began to abuse them. 

Neither England nor France have done anything but what 
they are justified in doing, not only by the law of nations, but 
by American precedents. Our own preeeelents are strongest 
against us. 

England had a right under the laws of nations to admit South- 
ern prizes into her ports* but she has refused to do it. All she 
was bound to do in case of a civil war was to treat both parties 
alike, and if she admitted the prizes of one party to admit those 
of the other. 

When the Spanish provinces revolted from Spain and declared 
their independence, we almost immediately admitted their Hags 
and prizes into our ports, years before we acknowledged their 
independence. Arid our courts acknowledged the state of neu- 
trality, and the lawfulness of the prize, in numerous cases; 
Texas declared herself independent of Mexico in March, 1836, 
and within six months after, her flag appeared in New York city ; 
and when the Mexican Minister remonstrated, our government 
answered that in the previous civil wars between Spain and her 
colonies, ' w it had never been held necessary as a preliminary to 
the extension of the rights of hospitality to either [party] that 
the chances of war should be balanced, and the probability of 
eventual success determined. For this purpose k, hafd been 
deemed sufficient that the party had actually declared its inde- 
pendence, and at the time was actually maintaining it." 



And this rule has been recognized by Adams, Clay and Web- 
ster, in the discussions growing out of the case of the Spanish 
Colonies. 

A great deal of contusion has arisen from confounding what 
England has done, viz., recognizing them as belligerents, (i. e., 
declaring neutrality and treating both parties alike,) with recog- 
nizing independence, which is a very different thing. Even if 
England had done the latter, according to the authority of 
Adams, Webster and Clay, it would be no just cause of war on 
our part. But she has not done it. 

But there is yet a stronger precedent against us and in favor 
of England than any I have mentioned. It was our case with 
Denmark. In 1779 Commodore Paid Jones took some British 
prizes, and they were carried into a Danish port. Denmark 
delivered them up to the English, on the ground that they 
(Denmark) had not recognized our independence. Our gov- 
ernment took the ground that in civil war, as well as in case of 
war between nations of acknowledged independence, and even 
before the independence of the revolutionary government was 
acknowledged by the old government, or by any government, 
each party has a right to carry its prizes into the ports of any 
other nation, unless that nation is bound by treaty not to admit 
them, or has given previous notice that they will not admit them. 

This was the ground taken by Dr. Franklin ; it was taken 
and most ably maintained by Henry Wheaton ; it was sustained 
by John Quincy Adams in a report, when Secretary of State, 
and only a few years ago by Mr. Cameron, now Secretary of 
War, in a report made to the Senate. 

Wheaton took the ground that in 1779 the United States were 
de facto sovereign, engaged in war, and carrying it on in the 
usual manner, exchanging prisoners and recognizing the usual 
laws of war. 

It has been said that England is not treating us as well as we 
treated her in her Irish and Canadian rebellions. There is no 
similarity in the cases. The Irish never set up a government at 
all ; and though McKenzie, in Canada, undertook to set up a 
provisional government, it never had any strength. And it can- 
not be denied that notwithstanding Van Buren's proclamations 
of neutrality, a large portion of our people did encourage these 
rebellions by their sympathies. 

And it is only by England recognizing the South as bellige- 
rents, and maintaining a neutrality between us, that our govern- 
ment is released from being responsible for Southern injuries to 



8 

British citizens and commerce. When Spain remonstrated 
against England's treating the Spanish colonies as independent 
governments, Mr. Canning, one of the greatest of English 
statesmen, replied that they must either hold Spain responsible 
for the acts of the colonies, or they must treat them as indepen- 
dent and responsible for their own acts. 

( )ur Administration seemed to have hesitated whether to treat 
this as an ordinary insurrection or a civil war; and they have 
thus involved themselves in some real or apparent inconsistency. 

If it is a mere insurrection, then the President has no right to 
take any measures to put it down except those pointed out by 
the laws, lie might draft militia, but he had no right to call for 
volunteers, or to do many things he has done. 

On the other hand, if it is a civil war, then it is a case not pro- 
vided for by the Constitution or laws ; and the President is justi- 
fied in resorting to all means required by the necessity, and pub- 
lic sentiment will justify him in doing it. 

And I am glad to find that the leading administration paper 
before referred to, admits that it is a war, and not a very small 
one either. And if it is a war, it is to be carried on by us as 
civilized people, and not as savages. We are to recognize the 
usages of war, and even if there are cases of inhumanity on the 
other side, that will be no justification for us. We have always 
claimed that the North had nearly all the religion in the United 
States. This will put it to the test. 

And our government has in tact recognized this as a state of 
war by declaring a blockade. A nation never blockades its own 
ports. It would be a mere abuse of language to call it so. Our 
government took this very ground in the case of our claims on 
the Two Sicilies, that a nation could not blockade its own ports. 
We, therefore, by blockading them, do in fact acknowledge them 
to be under another government, and not under ours. 

While England acknowledge* pur right to blockade the South- 
ern ports, she denies that we can collect duties there by a mere 
act of Congress. An act of Congress closing the ports, or au- 
thorizing a ship of war to collect duties there, is valid so far as 
our own citizens are concerned, but foreign nations are not 
bound to respect it. In the theory of government, protection 
and taxation go together. We have no right to compel an Eng- 
lish vessel to pay duties there, if we have not the power to per- 
mit them to land and sell their goods. For all practical purposes 
these ports are out of our jurisdiction ; and here, too, our prece- 
dents are against us. 



Grenada has lately attempted to close some rebellious ports by 
a mere decree. England admits the right to blockade them, but 
denies her right to close by a mere paper decree a port not in her 
actual possession. 

If it is not a war, then we have no right to search ships for 
contraband, a right which belongs only to a state of war. And 
Lord Derby's argument is unanswerable, that if we claim the 
rights of war for ourselves, we must allow them to the other 
party. 

And it is probable that by virtue of old treaties, the South 
have now a right to carry their prizes into the ports of Prussia, 
Netherlands and Sweden. 

And if we recognize a state of war, to be carried on as civili- 
zed war, on land, why not on the sea also ? It is idle to talk 
about hanging rebels and pirates. No one but a simpleton ex- 
pects it. If we hang their soldiers or privateersmen, they have 
but to do as our forefathers did to the officers of George III., 
threaten to retaliate by hanging ours. The threat was effectual 
then. I hope we are not less civilized now. 

I am sorry to hear the report that the administration have sent 
out their adhesion to the treaty of Paris of 1856, which abolished 
privateering. It will be said that Ave do in our weakness what 
we would not do in our strength. And besides, by the law of 
nations, our adhesion would not bind the South so long as they 
are maintaining an independent government. 

These facts and arguments are not very pleasant to consider, 
but the use I would make of them is this — that we should pre- 
pare for a long war and begin to economize ; that we should leave 
off all silly talk about our own prowess, Southerners being cow- 
ards, hanging Jeff. Davis, starving the South, conquering Cana- 
da, whipping England and France, and all the world besides, 
and come down to look at the case in naked truth and sad reality. 
Our people talk about a union of parties, but it is only in words ; 
they do not yet realize the necessity of it. When Ave fully un- 
derstand it, Ave shall see the necessity of union, and that it 
requires nothing less than our united strength to cope with the 
enemy. 

It is a Avaste of Avords to argue for or against the right to se- 
cede. But Ave cannot deny the right of revolution, and it is of 
no use quarrelling about Avho is to blame in this contest. Before 
the Avar was begun, I believe the blame Avas pretty equally divi« 
ded. The leaders of the South could not have carried the masses 
Avith them, if it had not been for the invasion of John BroAvn 



10 

and its justification by a portion of the North. And the North 
would not have been aroused as it is, if it had not been for the 
brutal attack on Charles Sumner, and its justification by a por- 
tion of the South. If the South sent to Congress the gentlemen 
they used to send, they would still have influence there. 

I can well recollect when, about 1835 or 1836, a Southern 
Governor, in a message, first proclaimed that taunt, since so often 
repeated, and of which so much political use has been made, that 
the laboring people of the North were slaves in fact, if not in 
name. But for taunts like these, abolitionists could have done 
but little. For abolition itself, or for the colored race, the North- 
ern people generally have cared but little. It is the insolence of 
Southern politicians which has aroused them. 

It is evident that the war has got to be a long and expensive 
one, or a short and bloody one. 

As long as the war was confined to the cotton States, I 
thought, with a great many people at the North, that the best 
way to get them back was to tell them to quit if they wanted to ; 
and they would soon find self-government a pretty expensive 
thing. But the case is now entirely changed. It will not do for 
us to separate from the Northern slave States. It would cut 
us — not in two — but into three nations. The East and the West 
would have a mere strip of territory to unite them, and they 
could not hold together. The commercial interests of the West 
are entirely opposed to those of the East — and how long would 
it before the West would join the South and reconstruct a pow- 
erful Union, leaving New England out ? 

The plan of military operations to reduce the South and pre- 
serve the Union, which seemed to promise to effect it with the 
least bloodshed, was the plan generally understood to be favored 
by General Scott and the President ; to blockade their ports, 
shut them in and destroy their trade, threaten attacks at various 
points, and so compel them to keep up a large army, and take 
away their people from their ordinary agricultural pursuits. If 
this plan had been pursued for a year, unless human nature at 
the South is different from what it is here — where we quarrel all 
the time — they would have quarrelled among themselves before 
long. As soon as elections came on, different parties and candi- 
dates would arise. Causes of dissension would multiply, and 
there would in time be a party, which, though it might not dare 
1(» assume the name of a Union party at first, would soon be- 
come one. 

Notwithstanding the disastrous result of the late battle, the 
government will probably endeavor to pursue the same policy. 



11 

But I have said the war may assume another aspect, and be a 
short and bloody one. And to such a Avar, an anti-slavery war, it 
seems to me we are inevitably drifting. It seems to me hardly 
in the power of human wisdom to prevent it. We may com- 
mence the war without meaning to interfere with slavery ; but 
let us have one or two battles, and get our blood excited, and we 
shall not only not restore any more slaves, but shall proclaim 
freedom wherever we go. And it seems almost judicial blind- 
ness on the part of the South that they do not see that this must 
be the inevitable result, if the contest is prolonged. 

We know well the power of a ruling race over an abject and 
submissive people. A few men accustomed to arms and to rule, 
can keep in subjection thousands of a race unused to arms and 
accustomed to submission. We see it in the case of India. A 
few British soldiers there keep in subjection a hundred millions 
even of civilized Hindoos. But the slaves have hitherto remained 
peaceably in slavery, because they had nowhere to flee. Once 
sure of an asylum and safety, fire and poison and the bludgeon 
will desolate the South. Without justifiable cause and without 
having suffered any actual injury, they have begun the conflict ; 
there will yet be time for reflection, but if warned of their dan- 
ger, they persist in their folly, upon their own heads must be the 
consequences. Compromise is for the present out of the ques- 
tion. Since the last battle, the South will not, and the North 
cannot with self-respect, offer terms of peaceable re-union. 

After remarks by Mr. Cooke, of Warren, the resolutions 
were unanimously adopted by the Senate, and on the same day 
were unanimously concurred in by the House of Representa- 
tives. 



NOTE ON THE BLOCKADE AND CLOSING THE PORTS. 

Our government, either from being new in office, or from 
multiplicity of business, or from some other cause, have been 
constantly, since the commencement of the Avar, violating the 
principles Ave have ourselves laid doAvn in similar cases hereto- 
fore. The President declares a blockade, Avhich is an incident 
of the war-making poAver. By so doing he admits that it is a 
civil Avar, and not merely a trifling insurrection. But noAv it is 
argued that the President can close the ports under the recent 
statute (although these ports are not de facto under our jurisdic- 
tion) and that the blockade is merely a coast guard to enforce 
the law. 



H 

When the Spanish American Provinces revolted from Spain ,- 
and declared their independence, Spain undertook to pursue the 
very course our government is now pursuing ; and the Dutch, 
English and the United States protested against it. 

The Spanish General Morales, by decree of September 15th, 
1822, proclaimed a blockade of twelve hundred miles of the 
coast of the Spanish Main, in South America, and prohibited all 
foreign commerce with the revolted Provinces as being contrary 
to the laws of Spain. At this time the Spaniards had but three 
vessels of war to blockade twelve hundred miles. 

This decree led to very serious disputes between the United 
States and Spain. England went so far as to order reprisals on 
Spanish commerce. 

John Quincy Adams, the Secretary of State, in his letter of 
April 28, 1828, to Mr. Nelson, our Minister in Spain, thus de- 
nounces these proceedings : And if he had foreseen the case of 
our blockade he could not have described it much better : 

" To this outrage on all the rights of neutrality [the inefficient 
paper blockade] they have added the absurd pretension of inter- 
dicting the peaceful commerce of other nations with all the ports 
of the Spanish Main, iipon the pretence that it had been hereto- 
fore forbidden by the Spanish Colonial laws. 

" The blockade was a public wrong. The interdiction of all 
trade was an outrage upon the rights of all neutral nations ; and 
the resort to two expedients bears on its face the demonstration, 
that they who assumed them both, had no reliance on the jus- 
tice of either ; for if the interdiction of all neutral trade was law- 
ful, there was neither use nor necessity for the blockade ; and if 
the blockade was lawful, there could be as little occasion or pre- 
tence for the interdiction of the trade. ***** ^he 
blockade and interdiction of trade have, from the first notice of 
them, not only been denounced and protested against by the gov- 
eminent and officers of the United States, but by those of Great 
Britain, even when the ally of Spain, and who has not yet 
acknowledged the independence of the revolted colonies. 

•• Mr. Andagua attempts, by laborious argument, to maintain 
r«> the fullest and most unqualified extent, the right of the Span- 
ish privateers to capture, and of the Spanish prize Courts to con- 
demn, all vessels of every other nation trading with any of the 
I .oris of the Independent Patriots of South America, because 
under the old colonial laws of Spain that trade had been prohib- 
ited ; and with the consistency of candor, at least, he explicitly 
Bays that the decrees issued by the Spanish commanders on the 



u 

Main tlhcler the name of blockades, were not properly so called? 
but were mere enforcements of the antediluvian colonial exclu- 
sion. * * * * Is it surprising that the final answer of 
Great Britain to this pretension, was an order of reprisals ?" 

After stating that Spain had appropriated forty millions of 
reals to pay the damages to British commerce and had revoked 
the blockade, Mr. Adams goes on : 

"It is in vain for Spain to pretend that during the existence 
of a civil war, in which by the universal law of nations, both 
parties have equal rights with reference to foreign nations, she 
can enforce against all neutrals, by the seizure and condemnation 
of their property, the law of colonial monopoly and prohibition 
by which they had been excluded from commercial intercourse 
with the Colonies before the existence of the war, and when her 
possession and authority were alike undisputed." 

In this same letter to Nelson, Mr. Adams stigmatises the decree 
of Morales as an abominable decree, and in another part of the 
letter as an atrocious decree. 

Upon the same subject the Committee of Foreign Relations of 
the United States House of Representatives made a report Jan- 
uary 31, 1835, in which they call this right claimed by Morales 
to forbid all commerce with the revolted provinces as being 
against the laws of Spain, " an absurd pretension." 

The doctrine we maintained in the case of the division of the 
Spanish Empire, we must now have applied to ourselves. And 
the Diario JSspanol, a Madrid paper, is now twitting us with our 
situation, and saying that they must be governed in our case by 
the precedents England and the United States have set. The 
United States are taking their turn. How long before Spain 
may have the same opportunity to reciprocate with England ? 

In regard to the notice and efficiency of blockades, the United 
States have always maintained very strong ground. 

In 1804 the English naval commander declared a general 
blockade "of the islands of Martinique and Guadaloupe." The 
United States remonstrated against this, and the British govern- 
ment instructed their naval officers " Hot to consider any block- 
ade of those islands as existing unless in respect of particular 
ports which may be actually invested ; and then not to capture 
vessels bound to such ports, unless they shall have previously 
been warned not to enter them." 

In 1816 Spain declared a blockade of " the ports of the vice- 
royalty of Santa Fe." The United States Minister at Madrid 
was instructed to protest against the general terms of the notice, 



14 

and we claimed that to be valid, the notice " must be confined 
to particular ports, each port havin a force stationed before it suf- 
ficient to intercept the entry of vessels," and that even then, no 
vessel should be seized until first warned off. 

Mr. Clay, Secretary of State, in his instructions to Mr. Tu- 
dor, Minister at Brazil, in October, 1827, says : 

" According to those principles [invariably contended for by 
the United States] no place can be considered lawfully besieged 
or blockaded, which is not invested by a competent belligerent 
force, capable of preventing the entry of a neutral ; and such 
neutral cannot be lawfully captured without having been notified 
of the existence of the blockade, and if he attempt to enter the 
blockaded port, being warned off."" 

The sooner our government conclude to call this a war, and 
not a paltry rebellion, and to call the blockade a blockade and 
make it efficient, the better. Their present course has an appear- 
ance of wavering and inconsistency. 

Will it not dampen the ardor for volunteering when the vol- 
unteers know that they not only expose themselves to the risk of 
being shot in battle, but that if taken prisoners, they may be 
hanged in retaliation, if our Cabinet should persist in their 
present plan of hanging the privateersmen as rebels and pirates. 

There is another consequence which may folloAV from the ap- 
parent determination of the cabinet to regard this as an insurrec- 
tion and not as a civil war. If the government treats it as an 
insurrection, the courts must treat it as such. The law of block- 
ade, capture and prize is a portion of the law of nations. And 
;is the law of nations recognizes only prizes of war, and knows 
no such thing as prize of rebellion, it may follow that the courts 
cannot condemn any American vessels captured before the pas- 
sage of the confiscation act, nor any foreign vessel in any case, 
except for violation of a revenue law, at a port not in our pos- 
session ; which, if done, would at once get us into a difficulty 
with foreign nations. This ground is very ably taken by 
Charles Edwards, Esq., of New York, in the Hiawatha prize 
case, and must probably be sustained by the Court. 

BIGHTS OF PARTIES IN A CIVIL WAR. 

In addition to the views of Franklin, Wheaton and others, in 
the Danish case, and the views of J. Q. Adams, in the case of 
the Spanish Colonies, before stated, upon the question how a 
civil war must be treated by foreign nations, we may refer to the 
following, as stating the views always heretofore maintained by 
the American Government on this subject : 



15 

" Even when civil Avar breaks the bonds of society and of gov- 
ernment, or at least suspends their force and effect, it gives birth 
in the nation to two independent parties, who regard each other 
as enemies, and acknowledge no common judge. It is of neces- 
sity therefore that these two parties should be considered by for- 
eign States as two distinct and independent nations," &c. &c. — ■ 
Extract from Report of Committee of Foreign Relations of U. 
S. House of Representatives, March 19, 1822. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
0i2 l,,l S26 ffl 283 A % 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




pemrulife® 
pH8J 



